Brain Shuffle, 10/12/08

-- Kudos to John McCain for telling his supporters that Barack Obama is a decent man and good citizen with whom McCain just happens to have some disagreements. Funny thing is, that also pretty much sums up how I feel about John McCain.

-- Hey, Tom Dart, if the courts tell you you're in contempt for refusing to evict rent-paying tenants whose landlords had their mortgages foreclosed, just tell the courts they've given you so many eviction notices that you haven't quite gotten to all of them yet.

-- I understand parents who condone drinking among their teenage kids. But I also understand adults who don't condone it. And I really, really don't understand parents who would get upset at an adult who doesn't condone it. If you think it's such a great idea, you drive your kids' dumb asses around.

-- Not that I condone this sort of thing, but if you had asked me which American city was most likely to boo Sarah Palin or any other national candidate, I would have guessed Philadelphia even before it happened.

-- Don't look now, but Billy Mays is this generation's Ron Popeil.

-- If only the Blackhawks could have played as well as Pat Foley sounded broadcasting Saturday night's game on WGN.

Kevin's NFL Picks, 2008 Season Week 6

Amazingly, despite my hellish Friday night (post coming soon), I got these in a full 24 hours before games start!

LOCK

Baltimore +4 at INDIANAPOLIS (O/U: 38.5)

With the miracles the Colts have needed to notch their two wins, there's good reason to believe the Ravens will win this one outright.

HIGH FIVE

WASHINGTON -13.5 vs. St. Louis (O/U: 44)
The Rams have lost games this year by (in order) 35, 28, 24 and 17. So they are getting closer to covering these huge spreads. Still, they're on the road against a very good team.

ARIZONA +5 vs. Dallas (O/U: 51)
The Cardinals play much better in the Pacific time zone, enough to take the points and forget about it.

New York Giants -9 at CLEVELAND (O/U: 43.5)
It's hard not to believe in the Giants, and the Browns may be without leading receiver Kellen Winslow.

Cincinnati +8.5 at NEW YORK JETS (O/U: 42.5)
The Bungles are back, but they're more competitive on the road.

Miami +3 at HOUSTON (O/U: 44.5)
Sorry, Texans fans, the misery continues.

WILD CARD

Philadelphia -4.5 at SAN FRANCISCO (O/U: 42.5)
Something tells me the Eagles cover this one, but it's tough to lay points on the road.

STAY AWAY

Oakland +7 at NEW ORLEANS (O/U: 47.5)
The Raiders have been surprisingly competitive, but who knows how the will react to a new coach.

Jacksonville +3.5 at DENVER (O/U: 48)
Last week, the Broncos were laying 3.5 against a mediocre Florida team, and they allowed a garbage-time touchdown that made them lose by a hook.

Detroit +13 at MINNESOTA (O/U: 45.5)
The only question is whether the Vikings can score enough to cover, but that's a really good question.

THE REST

Carolina +1.5 at TAMPA BAY (O/U: 36.5)
This will go a long way toward determining top dog in the NFC South, which should be the Panthers, although they are actually cats, so that's a point against, on top of which you really want to be careful about taking road teams in divisional games.

Chicago -3 at ATLANTA (O/U: 43.5)
As good as the Bears have looked lately, the Falcons are too hard to read to make a call here.

Green Bay -1 at SEATTLE (O/U: 45)
Raise your hand if you actually care about this game. Yeah, that's what I thought.

New England +5 at SAN DIEGO (O/U: 44)
I kind of like the Patriots here, but the last time I went against the Chargers as home chalk I got schooled.

RECORDS Last week (season)
Overall includes lock and high five picks -- I track my wild card picks for fun but claim no accountability for them.

OVERALL: 4-2 (13-11)
Lock: 0-1 (2-2)
High 5: 4-1 (11-9)

Wild Card: 0-1 (1-3)

Bears 34, Lions 7: Yeah, But It's Just The Lions

Not much to say about the Bears’ latest win, except maybe that road wins in the division are always nice, even when they’re a foregone conclusion. So here are some random thoughts:

-- The Lions might not win a game this year. I'll be more impressed if the Bears beat the surprisingly competitive Falcons.

-- It feels like 34-7 is a more common final score for a Bears’ victory over the Lions than any other single score. But I seriously don’t care enough to look it up. (But they DID win by that exact score in 2006.)

-- I laughed out loud when the Lions challenged a fumble call deep in their territory, down 24-0, finally got the ball back after an exceptionally lengthy delay, and then, on the very next play, threw an interception that Charles Tillman returned for a touchdown.

-- Heck, I even chuckled a little typing out that description just now.

-- If Kyle Orton goes 24-for-34 for 334 yards and two touchdowns every week, it’s going to be a good season. And if it’s a good season, I might stop whining about how the Bears should be at least 4-1 right now and in control of, rather than merely leading, a division that will send only one team to the playoffs.

-- Great coaching move by Lovie Smith to throw the red replay flag and get Marty Booker a 30-yard reception in his stats, even though the Bears would have gotten essentially the same spot on a pass interference penalty. On the surface that seems like too much risk for no real reward, but with a 17-0 lead and no realistic chance of losing the game, a potential loss of a timeout is a small price for a leader to pay to ingratiate himself to the troops.

-- Truth be told, I only watched through about the middle of the third quarter, as my dish lost the high-def signal while I was recording. Last major thing I saw was the Lions’ touchdown on the heels of Deven Hester’s fumble. Looking at the box score, I don’t think I really missed anything.

Brain Shuffle, 10/05/08

Yes, brain shuffle is back after a several weeks' hiatus. (Two, maybe?) I could tell you where it went, but that wouldn't be very shuffle-y at all, now, would it?

-- I have to admit, I rather enjoyed hearing a smiling Sarah Palin tell me to "drill, baby, drill!"

-- That said, I'd still rather drill Jill -- Biden, that is. Does that make me a hopelessly hardcore Democrat? Vote in the left rail!

-- I never quite understood Steve Fossett's fascination with daredevil-ry. Now I really don't understand it.

-- Not that I actually believe in curses, but I can't help but notice that the Cubs still haven't won a playoff game since the Steve Bartman incident. That's 0-8 since he fouled a foul ball in 2003; 0-9 overall.

-- Ummm ... does anybody out there really want to take Jenny McCarthy's medical advice?

-- Here's how much I hate Michigan: I don't care how badly Illinois beat them, I still think they got a gift from the officiating crew Saturday on their second "touchdown".

-- Confidential to Orenthal James S. of Los Angeles: You just couldn't keep your dumb ass out of jail, could you?

Kevin's NFL Picks, 2008 Season Week 5

Once again, these are coming in too late to help anybody. Then again, lately they've been coming in too wrong to help anybody.

LOCK

DENVER -3.5 vs. Tampa Bay (O/U: 46.5)
Tampa Bay just isn't as good as their mediocre 2-2 record would indicate.

HIGH FIVE

NEW ORLEANS -3 vs. Minnesota (O/U: 46.5)
The Saints' two losses were games they had a chance to win. The Vikings' one win was a bit of a fluke.

Pittsburgh +5 at JACKSONVILLE (O/U: 37)
The Jaguars definitely aren't going to bother to beat the Steelers by as much as 5.

MIAMI +6 vs. San Diego (O/U: 44.5)
After each of their last performances, take the Dolphins and the points at home.

Indianapolis -3 at HOUSTON (O/U: 49)
Don't ever on the road team in a divisional game. Unless its, you know, like the Colts at the Texans or something.

Washington +6.5 at PHILADELPHIA (O/U: 42)
I'm technically not breaking my rule here -- the Redskins could cover and still lose. Besides, 6.5 is a heck of a lot of points to give a team that just took down the Cowboys.

WILD CARD

BALTIMORE +2.5 vs. Tennessee (O/U: 3.5)
The Titans can't win them all, and this matchup with a former fierce division rival smells like a trap to me.

STAY AWAY FROM

ARIZONA -1.5 vs. Buffalo (O/U: 44.5)
Neither of these teams has done much covering the last couple weeks.

DETROIT +3 vs. Chicago (O/U: 45.5)
I just might leave the Sybil-esque Bears in this category all season long.

DALLAS -16 vs. Cincinatti (O/U: 45)
You should almost always stay away from an NFL game with a line of more than two touchdowns.

THE REST

CAROLINA -9.5 vs. Chiefs (O/U: 38.5)
That's a few too many points to pull the trigger on the Panthers.

GREEN BAY -3.5 vs. Atlanta (O/U: 40.5)
Aaron Rodgers' uncertain status makes this one tough to call, even though the Packers would probably beat the Falcons with you or me at quarterback.

N.Y. GIANTS -7 vs. Seattle (O/U: 43.5)
Too many variables to make a call here.

SAN FRANCISCO -3 vs. New England (O/U: 41)
Can we make this the '89 49ers vs. the '04 Patriots?

RECORDS Last week (season)
Overall includes lock and high five picks -- I track my wild card picks for fun but claim no accountability for them.

OVERALL: 2-4 (9-9)
LOCK: 1-0 (2-1)
HIGH FIVE: 1-4 (7-8)

WILD CARD: 0-1 (1-2)

It Wasn't Supposed To End Like This At All

What the hell happened?

The team with the best record in the NL was not supposed to get swept -- let alone annihilated -- by the team with the worst record of all of the playoff entrants.

Yet there it was. This went beyond the Dodgers winning in 3 games. The Cubs and their mighty offense held the lead for a whopping 2 1/2 innings and had a scoreless streak of 13 innings between Games 1 and 2. Meanwhile, their vaunted starting pitching got rocked as they were outscored 20-6 for the series.

It's hard to say who was the biggest disappointment for the Cubs. At first glance, it seems to be Alfonso Soriano and his 1-for-14 performance. (Incidentally, if you wanted to prorate his annual salary per postseason hits this year, that would be like paying $17 million for each one.) Ryan Dempster is also a candidate, following his 14 wins at Wrigley by giving up seven walks and a grand slam to set the tone in Game 1.

But my vote actually goes to Aramis Ramirez, who went 2 for 11 with no RBI after a season in which he got a little buzz for league MVP. Soriano didn't have a particularly outstanding season, so his disappearance wasn't as suprising. Ramirez turning invisible was more akin to David Copperfield disposing of a 747 into thin air in front of a TV audience.

(I have to admit, though, that there was a certain poetry to Soriano ending the series by flailing helplessly at a pitch at his feet.)

There's actually plenty of blame to go around, as that mighty offense left a total of 23 runners on base in the three games. You can say it's unfortunate that the Dodgers scored two runs -- the margin of victory -- in the clincher on Saturday with two outs in an inning that included a very questionable safe call. But that doesn't excuse the Cubs from leaving all of nine runners on base in that game, six of them in the first four innings. They clearly had chances to take control of that game and at least extend the series, and instead were mystified by a guy who went 9-10 during the regular season.

So, what really happened is that the Cubs played scared. What they were scared of, I don't know -- perhaps it was the expectations -- but it was obvious. You could see it in each of the four errors committed in Game 2; you could see it in the pained expressions of batters sulking away from the plate all night Saturday. Rob Dibble insightfully noted that the Cubs tended to watch pitches go down the middle of the plate and swing at ones out of the strike zone. They were too scared to pick their spots and stick with them.

At any rate, this in unacceptable. Last year, the season was a success just because the Cubs made the playoffs. This year, they had the potential to win the National League and return to the World Series for the first time since 1945. And now all that's left for Cubs fans to do is hope the White Sox lose in three as well, so I don't get drunken 2 a.m. phone calls from their knucklehead fans.

Palin, Biden Palin' By Comparison

I finally got around to becoming one of the many millions of Americans who watched Sarah Palin and Joe Biden in Thursday’s vice presidential debate. Hey, give me a break -- when my Cubs are in the playoffs, a lot of things get TiVo'd, because you don't always know how long that's going to last.

At any rate, it's no secret that this debate wasn't really Palin vs. Biden; it was Palin vs. Palin. All of America was waiting -- Democrats on the edge of their seats; Republicans with splayed fingers at the ready to close over their eyes -- for Palin to trip and fall and not be able to get up.

But it didn't happen. Her delivery was a bit mechanical and she clearly stuck to what she had rehearsed, but she certainly didn't embarrass herself or her ticket.

For that matter, neither candidate was exacty hitting home runs out there. I felt that neither of these two performed as well as either of the candidates at the top of the ticket in the Sept. 26 debate -- in other words, Obama and McCain were both more appealing than Palin or Biden.

I did think Palin showed a lot of guts to stare straight into the camera and speak to all of America with conviction on the heels of the beating she’s taken in the press. It’s clear now that she’s just an average, ordinary middle-class American, who, like every average, ordinary middle-class American, has an oversimplified view of what it would take to run the country. She’s just had the misfortune to be the one of us who’s been called out on it.

My only criticism of Palin's performance (or, I should say, my only legitimate criticism of Palin's performance) is that she sidestepped several of Gwen Ifill's questions. And she should be graded down for that. But no more so than any other politician who sidesteps questions, and there are a lot of those. (For the record, my other, bigger criticism is that she consistently said "nucular" instead of "nuclear", which just grated at the inside of my brain every time it clamored out of her mouth.)

Biden, incidentally, did not look for opportunities to trip her up, as some Democratic voters were hoping to see him do. Just a gut feeling, but I'm guessing this restraint was by design. There is a risk that Biden would turn some people off by attacking Palin. Barack Obama, who does not make dumb strategic decisions, has grinded out a modest but reliable lead in the polls, and I would not be surprised if he put a muzzle on Biden to "push" the debate and not risk those gains.

In fact, the closest Biden came to attacking Palin was when he completely schooled her on the constitutional role of the vice president. (And that's not my opinion; you can look it up here.) His second biggest attack was not directly at Palin but more at McCain, when he complained that we have heard Palin talking about how much of a maverick McCain will be as president but have heard nothing about how he will be a maverick.

This charge carried a lot of weight from Biden because he did offer a lot of specifics in his answers, and for that I would say he scored a narrow win in the debate. Then again, I'm biased. If someone wants to tell me this was a tie, I won't argue. If you tell me a tie is as good as a win for Palin, though, I would disagree. When you're behind in sports, you can't trade score for score, and likewise the McCain-Palin ticket can’t afford to just hold their ground this late in the game.